Moldoteck

So you are in a phase where coal is safer than nuclear? Sorry but that's bullshit. German early nuclear phaseout did already cause due to pollution half of total nr of estimated deaths from Chernobyl per UN assuming LNT is true at low doses. It's you that are ignoring facts and spread literally fossils fuel propaganda to justify your antinuclear position

4-6ct/kwh is dirt cheap. It's so cheap that even curtailing renewables to let it run more instead of using gas peakers is cheaper

And it's far from being higher than avg market prices today in Switzerland, where did you get this nonsense?

The price includes their profit margin. Even if they sell at lower, they'll still make profit, just less.

The claim about swiss taxpayers is bullshit, please stop spreading it, there's no proof to this whatsoever. Swiss nuclear plants operation is not subsidized.

Edf was not bailed out. It was renationalized (albeit state was always majority owner) to push for construction of epr2. EDF debt to EBITDA is healthy. It made profit pretty much every single year despite arenh, except 2022. EDF could definitely operate their npp more profitable but that's another story.

But even if we assume that 9bn transaction was a subsidy, do you realize it's merely half of what Germany is spending for EEG alone EACH YEAR?

"If nobody is able to refill the water in spent fuel pools at any nuclear plant, they will catch fire. Assuming a radial spread of the fallout it will be near guaranteed lethal for at least 50 miles, probably lethal for some 500 miles, and you "won't want to live there" for even further than that. And this will remain the case for millennia to decades, depending on weather and distance."

Please refrain from spread utter bullshit again. Not only you don't comprehend under what conditions used fuel catches fire or that if by some absurd reason nobody can cool the spent fuel to avoid boiling, something much more terrible happened, but catching fire/melting doesn't mean it'll be a fallout. It's clear you are antinuclear person and enjoy fossils. You don't need to invent bullshit to firm your position.

Land is not uninhabitable. Heck, even in freaking Chernobyl animals are thriving. Try saying the same about german coal mines

German gco2/kwh are dropping but it could have been so much better with nuclear similar to France

So you see that avg opex price is cheap, thanks for acknowledging. That was the statement, not that in new plants power is more expensive because they need to repay loan (which is balooned due to delays)

We need firm power. This isn't outdated. That's also why Germany approved subsidies for new gas plants, which were recommended even by Fraunhofer ISE

Basically either you build a mix like france/nordics and get very low emissions or you are stuck with vre+bess+gas combo like Germany.

Or, if you are convinced VRE are enough, provide an estimation/simulation for German grid based on existing data of last decade (capacity factors/demand)- how much vre+bess is needed to ditch firm fossils fully

The context is that all german reactors that aren't experimental or soviet are decommissioned on operators money without state financing.

The example of isar is particularly interesting - isar 2 is one of the latest that started decommissioning but is in much more advanced state vs others. Each operator does it as they wish. If you wait a bit more, rad levels drop so it's easier to decommission with less specialized equipment

Opex is low. Storage is figured out. See onkalo or hundreds of others for forever toxic chemicals

As example Canada and Australia

It's really a conspiracy. Ore is available in plenty of countries. Enrichment is done locally by orano+urenco amd fuel elements made by framatome

It would also not make sense considering china is the largest builder and they also sell most of vre

There are many more deposits to explore, like Sweden. And we can start doing purex+mox recycling to extend operation further

It can happen like in Sweden with proper guarantees

Valcoe paper is written by the founder of antinuclear movement in Denmark(which led at ti becoming one of the highest coal burners), has wild assumptions about hydrogen getting basically free for firming

Australia's weather is different from what we got in Europe. And let's not pretend many of aemos estimations are already obsolete due to increased costs of transmission and hydro storage that are huilt.

Dk still has worse emissions vs france/sweden, just like SA

If you don't like nuclear, you'll have gas peakers, like Germany

Because both are needed if you don't like gas. Fossils take even more billions so it's ok

You als can't be cut if you stockpile uranium for a decade or 2